Your Fears For the Game - Combined Thread

[kofeiiniturpa]

Very true, roles and gear don't need to be, in fact shouldn't be "balanced".

There's overbalancing and then there's underbalancing. Both are bad in their own right, but there always needs to be some form of balancing because without any, you end up with the latter and have 95 useless "features" and 5 useful ones.

 

[lord_blex]

Single player games DO NOT need to be balanced. I have to laugh when I see posts about something being too powerful in a single player game...uhh, don't use it then?

why would you not use them if they are the best? if an ability is auto-include into any build because it's so good then that's probably bad, since it just removes decisions.

witcher 3 didn't have this problem, because everything was op if you invested into it. I wonder if they will do the same thing here.

 

[Viperswhip]

why would you not use them if they are the best? if an ability is auto-include into any build because it's so good then that's probably bad, since it just removes decisions.

witcher 3 didn't have this problem, because everything was op if you invested into it. I wonder if they will do the same thing here.

Well, then you can't post about needing balance if you purposely use it, it's always up to you in a single player game.

 

[lord_blex]

Well, then you can't post about needing balance if you purposely use it, it's always up to you in a single player game.

so you don't think that if you have to put artificial limitations on yourself to be forced to explore other mechanics/builds then that's a problem with the design of the game? it's much more fun choosing between two interesting options than between the objectively better and "the other one".
not to mention that it's immersion braking if (for example) you have the opportunity to get a very powerful upgrade but your character refuses to buy it, because you know that it would make the game trivial.

 

[Suhiira]

There are a lot of aspects to "balance".

​In any sort of competitive game unless there's only one unit type with preset abilities you're going to have to figure out how to make various unit types/abilities roughly as useful as others or you wind up with one "optimum" unit/build and that totally negates the idea of varying play styles.

​In a non-competitive (or very limited PvP) game you have much the same problems as a competitive one but you also have to insure the various units/builds are also useful for PvE which often means abilities not needed/desired in PvP have to be balanced against the AI. And you have to insure the various classes/roles/unit types are approximately equally interesting to play. We all recall MMOs where the "Healers" while vital to the game were boring as hell to play because that's all you did.

In a single-player or fully cooperative game again it's much like the non-competitive/limited PvP model but there's a critical need to insure player-vs-AI isn't so easy/hard as to make the game boring/impossible to play. While there are players who enjoy everything at the hardest possible difficulty (i.e. some sort of survival mode, or one mistake means start over) they are not the majority, nor are the people that want everything as easy as possible. That's why games have difficulty settings. And balancing these vs player abilities/desires/the games mechanics can ... hell is ... difficult indeed.

​While ideally a game will include PvE/PvP and FPS/Tactical combat to attract the largest possible audience each of these factors has to be balanced separately from each other and often what works well for one aspect is a disaster in another (a prime example is stun locking in PvP).

​Of course there are also those players (primarily in PvP) that hate the idea of balance. They want to use whatever uber-build or rules exploits exist in a game and run around demolishing other players. While perhaps fun for them, and a great boost to their egos, it's not remotely practical if you want your game to survive long term because these players will ultimately drive everyone else out of the game and make it impossible for new players to join.

 

[Sardukhar]

I would say I fear attention to PvP balance in the Single Player. Real-world balance, like cost, rarity, concealability, bulk, etc -these things are great.

And, from a CP2020 perspective, although some things are absolutely great, nothing is Uber. There is no perfect cyber or gearpiece or weapon.

 

[reidyboy102998]

I would say I fear attention to PvP balance in the Single Player. Real-world balance, like cost, rarity, concealability, bulk, etc -these things are great.

And, from a P2020 perspective, although some things are absolutely great, nothing is Uber. There is no perfect cyber or gearpiece or weapon.

Lots of things I'm worried about so here it goes (sorry if I sound a little redundant in my concerns)

I worry about how the story will iron out. If CDPR learned from their mistakes from Witcher 3 regarding some story elements and combat, this game will be amazing. But this is CDPR we are talking about here. They are reading our thoughts/suggestions and maybe implementing them into CP 2077. The thing that also worries me are one dimensional side characters. I want some depth in those characters (some kind of back story whether its through cutscenes, side quests, or audio logs) so that I care about them. That's all I have to say for now, and may add in a separate post in the future.

 

[NightSavior]

Do you mean deadlier?

If so, i am not sure about it. Problem is what works in pen and paper or reality often does not work that well in video games. If combat is very deadly it will most likely be brief (unless turn based) and that means you don't have a lot of time to use different abilities and skills. Its really hard to create something that will feel like you are fighting for your life every second and be fun at the same time.

This has a lot to do with my first fear of the game and I think many on the forum share my feeling about it.

The more I've read and got familiar with Cyberpunk 2020 (yeah, yeah - I'm not OG like the rest here) I've noticed that the combat really doesn't have that big of a role in CB games. I'm hoping that the skills in the game won't have that big of a weight on the ones related to combat. I want to see plenty of skills to use outside of combat and not so much of the ones that only make cool combinations with different combat styles.

I.e. my biggest fear for CB2070 is that it has too much combat.

 

[Sardukhar]

I.e. my biggest fear for CB2070 is that it has too much combat.

One of my biggest, yeah, since that will "mundane" up the combat while losing the edgy, scary feel it should have. And, you know, murder shouldn't be your go-to, even in Cyberpunk, if you are trying for a realistic feel.

 

[Odinsauge]

Oh my post ended up in the wrong Thread, I don't know how.

I like playing stealthy but not all the time. It would be a shame if in ends up like Dishonored or Deus Ex where you are somehow a killing machine with nice skills and features but to have a happy ending you have to get through the game without using them. Sure it was a nice challenge to get through Dishonored without killing someone but in the end it was not that funny because I couldn't use all the skills and I was missing some gameplay features. And the thing about the rats was just frustrating.

 

[Viperswhip]

so you don't think that if you have to put artificial limitations on yourself to be forced to explore other mechanics/builds then that's a problem with the design of the game? it's much more fun choosing between two interesting options than between the objectively better and "the other one".
not to mention that it's immersion braking if (for example) you have the opportunity to get a very powerful upgrade but your character refuses to buy it, because you know that it would make the game trivial.

My main character in the last ladder season of Diablo 2 was a Spearazon, HC, got to level 94. In Pillars of Eternity there is bow that stuns on crit, I just did not buy it on subsequent playthroughs. If you don't have self control, that's not really our problem, choice should always exist, and not just be reduced to different flavours of porridge.

 

[111elf]

Since Mass Effect Andromeda is starting to get lots of media attention I'd like to add another "fear" for Cyberpunk 2077: The Mass Effect 3 ending. Why? It's a deus ex machinima ending ignoring all choices made throughout the game up to that point, with just binary choices (that btw were a homage to the endings of Deus Ex - just compare them) and no real logical grounding in the story (especially as established in Mass Effect 1).

In my opinion there should be alternative endings (and I mean real alternative endings) based on your choices _throughout_ the game. So yeah - no ME3 ending, please

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

In my opinion there should be alternative endings (and I mean real alternative endings) based on your choices _throughout_ the game.

Agreed.

Optimally, the game would have an open enough storyline that it would allow alternative endings that happen in different locations with different people and in different situations, and further more such that it would allow the player to end the storyline abruptly (for example by boarding a plane or hopping on his motorcycle and leaving night city) and still get a somewhat meaningful ending (smaller than the proper endings) that would reflect how he has affected what ever story-specific groups/locations/characters up to that point - and what might've come afterwards, he'll never know.

 

[NightSavior]

Optimally, the game would have an open enough storyline that it would allow alternative endings that happen in different locations with different people and in different situations, and further more such that it would allow the player to end the storyline abruptly (for example by boarding a plane or hopping on his motorcycle and leaving night city) and still get a somewhat meaningful ending (smaller than the proper endings) that would reflect how he has affected what ever story-specific groups/locations/characters up to that point - and what might've come afterwards, he'll never know.

As I see it, if they stay true to the original idea that the game wouldn't revolve around any "world saving plot" there's a change that the main character could end up to multiple different situations. Of course, it's highly possible that there's a fixed main quest line that's a story of your character starting from the gutter and climbing up the ladder of a corporation to gain a better status. I really hope it won't be that simple...

 

[lord_blex]

The Mass Effect 3 ending. Why? It's a deus ex machinima ending ignoring all choices made throughout the game up to that point, with just binary choices (that btw were a homage to the endings of Deus Ex - just compare them) and no real logical grounding in the story (especially as established in Mass Effect 1)

while it wasn't the "optimal" way to end a long series, I don't think they could have done it any other way. when your story is basically that you are fighting gods, you can't just simply defeat them. but I don't see cyberpunk writing itself into a corner within a single game.

 

[Suhiira]

Of course, it's highly possible that there's a fixed main quest line ...

I'm 100% sure there will be some main quest line. But there are endless possibilities besides "raising from the gutter.

​Locate and possibly rescue a family member/friend that's disappeared.
​After performing some small (starter) missions you piss off some gang/corp and now you have to get them off your ass.
​You find a data chip everyone wants, and will kill for, do you sell to the highest bidder or the least immoral one?
​A dying courier drops an item in your lap, finish the delivery for a payout, keep it, toss it, destroy it ... but no one will believe you don't know something you shouldn't.

​The possibilities are endless.

while it wasn't the "optimal" way to end a long series, I don't think they could have done it any other way. when your story is basically that you are fighting gods, you can't just simply defeat them. but I don't see cyberpunk writing itself into a corner within a single game.

That's one of the problems with "world saving" or allowing a character to become a demi-god (with respect to stats/skills/gear) you can't really create a series of games that build off one another.

 

[Edo34]

I fear it's going to be too good...and we can't have that..NO SIR!

 

[Viperswhip]

while it wasn't the "optimal" way to end a long series, I don't think they could have done it any other way. when your story is basically that you are fighting gods, you can't just simply defeat them. but I don't see cyberpunk writing itself into a corner within a single game.

There was no optimal way to end it after the Arrival DLC, there is literally no reason at all they could not have simply made it 100 or 150 cycles, something that could be brutally hard to beat, but still be beaten conventionally if you had a perfect playthrough. Nope, had to be thousands of cycles and no chance to beat it without a god device.

Still there is no chance this game will have that kind of ending, it will be similar to the Witcher, I presume we will just be one small cog in the the Great Night City, not the saviour of the world.

 

[Suhiira]

I think a lot of folks want to be big borg'd up cogs!

 

[111elf]

Optimally, the game would have an open enough storyline that it would allow alternative endings that happen in different locations with different people and in different situations, and further more such that it would allow the player to end the storyline abruptly (for example by boarding a plane or hopping on his motorcycle and leaving night city) and still get a somewhat meaningful ending (smaller than the proper endings) that would reflect how he has affected what ever story-specific groups/locations/characters up to that point - and what might've come afterwards, he'll never know.

That would be so awesome! That's why I find the secret ending of Far Cry 4 to be one of the most innovative and brilliant ones! Although there are certainly other games that did similar things before. As far as I know there was a smaller title - Rising Sun (?) - where in the beginning you're being asked whether you're going to rise up to the legend and follow your destiny - and you could just be like "nah!" - credits - end ^^ Both examples are of course much simpler than what you described - and building on top of that would be really cool!

That's one of the problems with "world saving" or allowing a character to become a demi-god (with respect to stats/skills/gear) you can't really create a series of games that build off one another.

There are many reasons why I don't like those kind of story lines - from being predictable to unrelatable to overly dramatic in a "you're the messiah and without you everything is lost"-kind of way. Pressing the story line in narrow confines and getting in the way of potential sequels is another aspect!

There was no optimal way to end it after the Arrival DLC, there is literally no reason at all they could not have simply made it 100 or 150 cycles, something that could be brutally hard to beat, but still be beaten conventionally if you had a perfect playthrough. Nope, had to be thousands of cycles and no chance to beat it without a god device.

^ This! Basically the problem is not just the god device at the very end - it's also the story-telling-god-device of "you can easily beat this challenge and that even though we told you it's impossible beforehand - but this time we just artificially limit your possibilities and won't let you do what you basically did during all other missions/finales". I guess it's another problem of the demi-god stories Suhiira mentioned - in a grounded story there are real, relatable limits to your possibilities. But as soon as you let the protagonist become god-like it's not so easy anymore to create believable differences between challenges - why can you overcome one situation and not the other?

Edit: Another example for the phenomenon: Killing off characters in games where resurrection is a part of the gameplay routine. In short: It's the story-tellers "because I want to" solution.